To:P. B. AXELROD

Published:First published in 1925.

      Sent from Munich to Zurich.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages60-64.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

April 25, 1901

Ihaven’t had a talk with you for a long time, I could   not get down to it and, besides, Alexei has written   to you about all business
matters,[1]but the need of a talk   has become too great for me to put it off any
longer. I   should like to consult you about both the Parisians and
Zurichers,[7]as well as about matters in general.

Doyou know that the Parisians (long ago, about two   or three weeks) have
“dissolved theIskrapromotion group”   and have
refused (for the second time) to co-operate, on   the grounds of our
having “violated organisational  -7 neutrality” (sic! that we
were unfair to the
Union[8]and wrongly   attacked it inZarya). This was written by the author of   “Comments on the
Programme ofRabocheye
Dyelo”,[9]who   hinted most
unambiguously thatRabocheye Dyelowas on   the mend (inListokNo. 6[10]it has even over-mended itself,   in our opinion!) and consequently... consequently ...  -3Vivrons
verrons[2]—this

“dear comrade” concluded. Obviously   (like certain “young forces” about whom G. V. wrote), he   is aiming at a better position inRabocheye Dyelo, The sheer   scoundrelism of it made us so indignant that we did not   even answer them. InIskraNo. 4 (we have been promised   that No. 3 will be ready by May 1 and intend to start on   No. 4 immediately) we are going to flayRabocheye Dyelofor its shilly-shallying.

Ireally don’t know whether to give these intrigants up   as a bad job or to make yet another attempt. They are,

undoubtedly,capable people, they have written, they have   (both of them)
supplied material (Danevich as well), they   have collected money
skilfully (as much as 350  -2 frs—nowhere yet has so much been collected
abroad forIskra).   As a matter of fact, we are not blameless
either in regard   to them: we have not paid them sufficient attention, we
  have not sent a single article for examination and  -3 “comradely
advice”, we have not offered any “section” (if only   a foreign review
inIskraor comments in a social chronicle   on certain
issues). Apparently, under the conditions  -6 obtaining abroad, it is
impossible, quiteimpossible, not to have   something of the
sort. Now take the
Berliners[11](Arsenyev   was there recently)—they too want a definite
position;   simply to helpIskra, they say, can satisfy a
student, butweorDvinskaya(she and her husband are
withdrawing   from the Union, in which, when the members were questioned,
  only
three—Grishin[12]y compris!—expressed themselves   in favour of the conference.Vive camarade G.!) require,   they say, something of the sort, you know....

Ijust don’t know what to do! It is necessary to “invent”   an organisation—without thates geht
nicht.[3]

Ithas occurred to me that the following plan of  -8 organisation could be
tried: theSotsial-Demokratorganisation,[13]the editorial
board ofZaryaand various groups (the  -3 Berliners, for
example, the Parisians,perhaps, etc.), or various   persons,
unite in aLeague,[14]let us say. Literary activity   to be handled in three ways: the Emancipation of Labour   group has its print-shop,Zaryahas its own, with anelectedLiterary Committee as closest collaborator, taking part in   periodic joint editorial sessions and publishing (over the   signature of the Literary Committee) pamphlets, etc., in   the print-shops ofSotsial-DemokratandZarya—eventuellalso in a third print-shop should theLeagueset one up   (there is such a prospect). Thesupreme decisionon literary   questions in the League will belong to aconference of three   members: from the Emancipation of Labour group, fromZarya, and from the Literary Committee, There will be a   joint, elected management.

Such,in substance, is my plan (of course,Iskra, being
a Russian publication,does notformallycome intothe
League). In principle this plan is approved here—by
Elder Sister too. I believe that such a “constitution”
(“Austrian” Alexei jokingly calls it) holds no dangers for us, and
something of the kind is absolutely necessary, otherwise
there will be general dissatisfaction and we may lose all
our people. In this way we shall be fully guaranteed against
dissensions and squabbles, keeping full control of our
printshops and editorial boards, while giving people the
requisite scope without which they will not agree to co-operate.

Pleasewrite what you think of this idea, and talk it
over with G. V. (to whom I am not writing, for he should
soon be here and will, of course, call on you on the way).
I am not going into details; they can be easily settled. If
we all (i.e., the wholeSotsial-Demokrat) agree on this,
the chances are that the Berliners (who have a print-shop
and are eager to “work” from a definite “position”) will
join us, and then we shall be able to counterpose to the
Union a united “League” developing extensive activities.

Thereis no need to fear an elected management, for it
will only control transport and the collection of money
abroad, divided in a definite proportion betweenSotsial-Demokrat,Zarya, etc., but it will not have anything to
do withIskra, which informally will be behindZaryaand
together withZarya. Formally the League can be declared
the ally abroad of theIskra organisation in Russia, which
we are already establishing.

Noris there any need to fear literary stupidities, for
(1) the Literary Committee can be bound by its Rules as
far as independent publishing is concerned; (2) it will
publish over its own signature: the Emancipation of Labour
group andZaryawill not be confused with it; (3) our
people as well can be in it; (4) it will be subordinated to the
conference, in which we have a majority.

Idon’t know, of course, whether this will satisfy the
Parisians—they are so proud. We feel awkward about
approaching them. If you approve of the plan, would you
care to write to them and throw out a feeler, seeing that
they spoke to you earlier in Paris about their sad situation;
you could now suggest this way out to them. If you ap-prove of the idea, we shall get in touch with Koltsov and
ask him to draft Rules for the
League.[4]

Nowabout the Lettish Zurichers. I don’t know whether
you have heard that the transport arranged with their helpcame to grief: 3,000 copies ofIskra(No. 1) wereseizedby
the police, who got hold of the smuggler as well. Later
one of them wrote to us, asking for more fare money. We
replied that we could not give any more for this route—
we would not dare to put it before our organisation—but
if he would undertake specially to get one pood across (as
he undertook to do when he talked with me), then let him
come and pick it up.

Therewas not a word in reply. Do you know whether,
perhaps, they have taken offence? What are they doing
and planning? If you see any of them, please have a talk
to find out how matters stand.

Weare beginning to think about No. 2 ofZarya—it is
time to do so. The Witte memorandum will soon be
finished,[5]in about 2-3 weeks (for some reason Dietz is incredibly
slow with it; so far only 9 sheets are ready). So far we havenomaterial apart from Nevzorov’s article on the historical
preparation of Russian Social-Democracy which you already
know about. We are hoping for a leading article by G. V.
on recent events, his articlecontraStruve, your article
(from editorial comments)—that’s true, isn’t it?; an article
by Luxemburg is promised (a new introduction to her
articles “Die sozialistische Krise in
Frankreich”,[6]which
articles we intend to translate), and Kautsky has promised
an article on academicians and proletarians.

Wehave no foreign reviews. How do matters stand with
the “Austrian” article? Isn’t anything coming from
America?—and from Switzerland? It is said that Danevich is
ill. There is no one we can ask to write about Germany—^M
apart from Parvus, who promised (?) a foreign review but
that is not quite the thing.

Inthe fourth issue ofIskrait is proposed to have an
article on terrorism (by Alexei); there is: “The Autocracy
and the Zemstvo” (continuation), “The Autocracy and
Finance” (by Parvus), something for the social chronicle (there
is a supplement on demonstrations) and the working-class
movement. We are thinking of issuing No. 4 in a single
sheet (No. 3 has expanded so much, to two sheets, 8 pages
(seven pages are now ready), like No. 1—and part had
to be left out!). We must exert every effort to expedite the
publication, ofIskra—to make it a monthly.

Good-bye!All the best. Regards to all your family. From
my wife too.

Yours,Petrov

P.S.Write to me at Rittmeyer’s.

BeforeI forget: on the instructions of Elder Sister
I inform you that 250 frs. has been received. The report
on this is published inIskraNo. 3 (“From America through
Axelrod”). I am sending you via Stuttgart 10 copies
ofZarya—send them to Ingerman, Mokrjyevich, etc. Elder
Sister is writing an article for the Germans on the
demonstrations.

[1]Ihave been ill here for a week with influenza.   —Lenin

[2]Weshall wait and see.—Ed.

[3]Thereis nothing doing.—Ed.

[4]Itwould be good to come before our people with a joint draft
ofSotsial-DemokratandZarya.—Lenin

[5]“ThePersecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of
Liberalism” (see present edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.

[6]“TheSocialist Crisis in France.”—.Ed.—Lenin

[7]Parisians—theBorba(Struggle) literary group
abroad who considered themselves affiliated to the R.S.D.L.P. The group was
dissolved by decision of the Second Congress of the Party (see Note 93).

Zurichers—Lettish Social-Democrat students living in Zurich
who handled the shipment of illegal publications to Russia. p. 60

[8]Thisrefers to the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad (see Note
39). p. 60

[9]Theauthor of “Comments” was D. Ryazanov.

Ryazanov,David Borisovich(1870-1938)—participant in the
Social-Democratic movement of the nineties. In 1900 went abroad and was one
of the organisers of theBorbaliterary group, which opposed the
Party programme worked out byIskraand Lenin’s principles
of Party organisation. The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. declared
against the participation of theBorbagroup in the Congress
proceedings and rejected a motion inviting Ryazanov to the Congress in the
capacity of its representative.

In1909 he was lecturer at the Capri school of theVperyodfaction. p. 60

[10]ListokRabochevo Dyela(Rabocheye Dyelo Supplement)—a
non-periodic publication of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad;
appeared in Geneva in 1900-01. p. 60

[11]Thisrefers to members of theIskrapromotion group in
Berlin. p. 61

[12]SeeNote 57. p. 61

[13]Therevolutionary organisationSotsial-Demokratwas formed by
members of the Emancipation of Labour group and their followers in May 1900
after the split in the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad which took
place at its Second Conference. In October 1901Sotsial-Demokrat,
on Lenin’s proposal, united with the foreign section of theIskraorganisation into the League of Russian Revolutionary
Social-Democracy Abroad. p. 61

[14]Lenin’splan was carried out in October 1901, when the League of
Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad was founded. Affiliated to
the League were the foreign section of theIskraorganisation, and
theSotsial-Demokratorganisation. The task the League was to
disseminate the ideas of revolutionary Social-Democracy and promote the
building up of a militant Social-Democratic organisation. The League was
the representative abroad of theIskraorganisation. It issued
several bulletins and pamphlets, including Lenin’sTo the Rural
Poor(see Vol. 6 of this edition).

TheR.S.D.L.P.’s Second Congress endorsed the League as the only
Party organisation abroad having the status of a committee and working
under the guidance and control of the Central Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P. After the Second Congress the Mensheviks entrenched themselves
in the League and launched a struggle against the Bolsheviks. At the
League’s second congress in October 1903 the Mensheviks slandered the
Bolsheviks, upon which Lenin and his followers walked out. The Mensheviks
got new Rules adopted, directed against the Party Rules approved by the
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. From then on the League became a
stronghold of Menshevism. It existed until 1905. p. 61